All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:17:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101115091719.GD27362@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101114144155.E01F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 02:43:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:07:04PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > +	if (COMPACTION_BUILD)
> > > +		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> > > +	else
> > > +		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
> > >  
> > 
> > Gack, I posted the slightly wrong version. This version prevents lumpy
> > reclaim ever being used. The figures I posted were for a patch where
> > this condition looked like
> > 
> >         if (COMPACTION_BUILD && priority > DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> >                 sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> >         else
> >                 sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
> 
> In all other place, heavy reclaim detection are used folliowing.
> 
> 	if (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> 
> 
> So, "priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2" is more symmetric, I think. but if you have strong
> reason, I don't oppse.
> 

I had no strong reason other than "I don't want lumpy reclaim to be used
easily". I will match the other places. Thanks

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Mel Gorman <mel@csn.ul.ie>
To: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com>
Cc: Andrea Arcangeli <aarcange@redhat.com>,
	Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
	Rik van Riel <riel@redhat.com>,
	Johannes Weiner <hannes@cmpxchg.org>,
	linux-mm@kvack.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure
Date: Mon, 15 Nov 2010 09:17:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20101115091719.GD27362@csn.ul.ie> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20101114144155.E01F.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>

On Sun, Nov 14, 2010 at 02:43:12PM +0900, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 07:07:04PM +0000, Mel Gorman wrote:
> > > +	if (COMPACTION_BUILD)
> > > +		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> > > +	else
> > > +		sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
> > >  
> > 
> > Gack, I posted the slightly wrong version. This version prevents lumpy
> > reclaim ever being used. The figures I posted were for a patch where
> > this condition looked like
> > 
> >         if (COMPACTION_BUILD && priority > DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> >                 sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_COMPACTION;
> >         else
> >                 sc->lumpy_reclaim_mode = LUMPY_MODE_CONTIGRECLAIM;
> 
> In all other place, heavy reclaim detection are used folliowing.
> 
> 	if (priority < DEF_PRIORITY - 2)
> 
> 
> So, "priority >= DEF_PRIORITY - 2" is more symmetric, I think. but if you have strong
> reason, I don't oppse.
> 

I had no strong reason other than "I don't want lumpy reclaim to be used
easily". I will match the other places. Thanks

-- 
Mel Gorman
Part-time Phd Student                          Linux Technology Center
University of Limerick                         IBM Dublin Software Lab

--
To unsubscribe, send a message with 'unsubscribe linux-mm' in
the body to majordomo@kvack.org.  For more info on Linux MM,
see: http://www.linux-mm.org/ .
Fight unfair telecom policy in Canada: sign http://dissolvethecrtc.ca/
Don't email: <a href=mailto:"dont@kvack.org"> email@kvack.org </a>

  reply	other threads:[~2010-11-15  9:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 34+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2010-11-11 19:07 [RFC PATCH 0/3] Use compaction to reduce a dependency on lumpy reclaim Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07 ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07 ` [PATCH 1/3] mm,vmscan: Convert lumpy_mode into a bitmask Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07   ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14  5:40   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14  5:40     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15  9:16     ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-15  9:16       ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07 ` [PATCH 2/3] mm,compaction: Add COMPACTION_BUILD Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07   ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14  5:45   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14  5:45     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15  9:26     ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-15  9:26       ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07 ` [PATCH 3/3] mm,vmscan: Reclaim order-0 and compact instead of lumpy reclaim when under light pressure Mel Gorman
2010-11-11 19:07   ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-12  9:37   ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-12  9:37     ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14  5:43     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14  5:43       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15  9:17       ` Mel Gorman [this message]
2010-11-15  9:17         ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14  6:02     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14  6:02       ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15  9:22       ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-15  9:22         ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-15 15:23         ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-15 15:23           ` Andrea Arcangeli
2010-11-14  5:59   ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14  5:59     ` KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-15  9:25     ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-15  9:25       ` Mel Gorman
2010-11-14  5:31 ` [RFC PATCH 0/3] Use compaction to reduce a dependency on lumpy reclaim KOSAKI Motohiro
2010-11-14  5:31   ` KOSAKI Motohiro

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=20101115091719.GD27362@csn.ul.ie \
    --to=mel@csn.ul.ie \
    --cc=aarcange@redhat.com \
    --cc=akpm@linux-foundation.org \
    --cc=hannes@cmpxchg.org \
    --cc=kosaki.motohiro@jp.fujitsu.com \
    --cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
    --cc=linux-mm@kvack.org \
    --cc=riel@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body. 
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.